Say It Ain't So Donald, Say It Ain't So

Trump's secretary of state has said the USA is working on a plan to remove Assad from power.

There are rumors that there will be an attack on Syria soon.

I supported Trump because I thought he would have a less bellicose foreign policy and one which, in particular, would not destabilize other countries (such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) which has lead to a massive influx of "refugees" to Europe and ultimately the USA.

I don't know what happened with the alleged chemical attack. Why would Assad - who won't be defeated as long as there is Russian support and American ambivalence - use chemical weapons? You can kill just as many people with regular bombs (as the US did recently in Iraq).

"The issue with the US in the South is that the US is of course nuclear armed - totally in violation of the Armistice Agreement. That is the provocation (along with the annual exercises the US and S Korea always have right on the border which predictably invoke a N Korea response). The US has admitted it's violating the 1950 Armistice Agreement - which the regime in the North uses continually to justify the nuclear deterrent.

So you couldn't be more wrong. The N Korean regime told us that if the US withdrew then they would dismantle their programme - so long as there was the guarantee from China. There is no interest from S Korea in this and neither is there much from the US, even though they have tried to withdraw in the past to the chagrin of S Korea."

"On 20 March 2017 BICOM hosted a briefing with Moshe Ya’alon. Ya’alon is a former IDF Chief of Staff, and served as Israel’s Defence Minister from 2013 to 2016 until disagreements with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led to his resignation. Ya’alon has announced the formation of a new political party and his intention to run for Prime Minister. He is likely to have a major role in determining the composition of the next government in Israel. In this briefing he discusses the security challenges facing Israel and the wider region and the prospects for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Below is an edited transcript."

... in the War on IslamoMarxist Filth and its fellow-travellers: I know those MOABs of the kind that just despatched some Filth in Afghan caves are in short supply—only 15, I believe—but should the President consider dropping one over Irvine (ARISIS HQ) and maybe a couple over San Francisco (Whiny Airhead Snowflake Sanctuary City HQ)? That would assuredly be an advance for civilised humanity, no?

Richard -- The truth is North Korea today may be a bigger objective threat than China, Russia, or Pakistan. Their leadership certainly seems to be more irrational and fanatical. But...

America and the West should never have allowed these three menacing dictatorships, with their massively aggressive philosophies, to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place. They should have been attacked, conquered, and disarmed the moment they even seemed close to getting WMDs. America and the West, for all our imperfections and illiberalism, have an absolute right to live in non-extreme terror. Tyrannical, bellicose, lunatic, zealous gov'ts have no right to possess such deadly weapons.

And it may be wiser for the U.S. to try to disarm North Korea now, rather than pitifully, helplessly wait for down the road. One news report I recently heard said North Korea already has 13-30 nukes and another said 25-50. I think it must be pretty easy for them to smuggle a handful into the U.S. by hand, or use their warships or submarines, or employ some container ship or small private plane, etc. Perhaps America is soon in for a few terrible mushroom-shaped surprises.

It doesn't matter that they have no hope in hell, or what their iq is. Hitler and his Nazis had no hope in hell either. It also doesn't matter what America is or was. What matters is what it needs to be. Standing up to Islam requires stomping on multiculturalism, cultural marxism, political correctness, etc. Just do it in the cause of defending values. Nth Korea doesn't have a hope in hell either, but it is a greater threat now to the lives of millions thanks to years of appeasement. I hope that the US technology that can shoot missiles from the sky before they leave Nth Korea is 100% effective and that Trump drops a shitload of MOABS on the Nth Korean regime. Imagine that. Waking up one morning and hearing that the Nth Korean regime no longer existed. What a great, great, great day that would be. Not only because the Nth Korean regime was gone, because America stood up.

Doug -- You say my radical book Pure Liberal Fire (https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Li...) is "vapid." I dare and defy you to back that claim up with a single paragraph. My book consists of one hundred mini-essays (330 words on average) which are written in simple, direct language which is extremely easy to comprehend. I dare and defy you to pick out the weakest essay and show how it's incorrect or even a touch vapid.

And for the record: I know liberal theory better than anyone else on the face of the earth and the history of man. It's the world's most important paradigm and concept.

As for liberal war theory, I've read several essays and other items from Objectivist John David Lewis, as well as his book, Nothing Less than Victory. He's the strongest war theorist who ever lived, in my view. I spoke to him personally maybe three times over eight years (roughly), and emailed him several times too. Plus I did an exclusive interview with him (http://www.liberalinstitute.co...). If you think Ralph Raico or Murray Rothbard are better thinkers than this powerful Objectivist scholar you need to post a few links to their best essays and books, or at least mention what their claims are. But you don't win the argument by asking everyone to read or listen to infinitely long, boring, obscure, and weird sources. I think you're decently smart, with interesting things to say, and I hate seeming to insult you (or anyone), but most of your fresh and good ideas are seriously undercut by your: (1) lack of substantive comment on most issues; (2) scathing insults of anyone and everyone; (3) posture of bitter personal attack in practically every discussion; (4) untrue, unjust potshots at heroic and noble Jews; (5) conspiracy-theorist expert sources.

Unlike you, with your near-infinite intellectual complications, and hash of twenty different philosophies combined, I view the whole world and all of history thru a single concept and lens: liberalism. I like to examine things thru the philosophy, culture, politics, and lifestyle of Western liberalism as exemplified by the Greco-Romans, Renaissance/Enlightenment, and current neo-classical liberals (such as Objectivists and libertarians, with the only pure liberal being me). If you think this viewpoint, approach, or attitude is somehow wrong, I'd love to hear how. Just make your claims a bit substantive, please. I love intellectual discussion, so I'm perfectly willing to accept the judgment that I'm a moron and lowlife of malicious intent but...I'd like to hear some kind of semi-substantial, semi-substantive argument also. It can be of any type on any subject.

"The Islamic regime of Iran and its supporters want to see Khomeini's prophecy of Islam spread from mountaintop to mountaintop come to pass no less than Sunni faithful do"

The idea that a people with an average IQ of 87 creating a world wide Islamic empire that traverses the Slavic world on the East as well as the Asian world on the East and the Western European world on the West -- to reach North America and threaten North American peace and stability is absurdist nonsense (of the NeoCon variety). Islam is a danger for two reasons:

1) because we allow the immigration of Muslims which could be easily stopped if we had the will

2) because American foreign policy has been to establish a Satrap in the ME. One based on (to use a term) Neo Liberal principles of egalitarian democracy as well as a Messianic view of America as a world force to spread that democracy. As I just told Kyrel. This started at the end of the 19th century with the Spanish American War. At that time America chose to become an Empire. Sadly Objectivists deny this which is why I say they share the same intellectual territory as the international globalist left and the Neocons.

"The bottom line is, the global jihadists are just as much your enemy as they are Israels enemy and Iran is part of that global jihad movement."

This is what happens whey you get your news from Fox News or NeoCon influenced sites. And that includes the "anti-Islam" movement like the Gates of Vienna blog (which I am sure you read). I say it again. Israel is a more dangerous country to America then Iran. It has killed more Americans than Iran and wields a dangerous amount of influence over the American political machine and by extension the American military. And Israel is sociopathic. I would rather America lift the sanctions on Iran and totally abandon Israel (the US gets no benefit from its association with Israel, they're parasites). It would make things better for Americans even if we don't deport our Muslims which we should.

BTW, as you can tell, I will not be the keynote speaker for the Objectivist summer conference this year. lol.

All you've really said is that I consider multiple sources for reaching knowledge and that I have a historical perspective. Which is better than you're ignorant basis of all your opinions on "liberalism" which you don't even understand.

BTW Kyrel, you don't even know the "liberal" tradition on war commentary. If you had actually read the "liberal" historians on war you would have been reading the revisionist school of history which Rothbard introduced into the libertarian movement. The recently departed Ralph Raico was one of the best liberal historians of our era and he was associated with Mises U (not the insane warmongering objectivists). And if you read his conclusions on the European wars you would see that they sound far closer to mine than the nonsense you would hear from Objectivist historians (ie Churchill was scum, both the Americans and British committed war atrocities against the Germans, FDR was aware of the Japanese intent to bomb Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen to manipulate the country into a war he wanted, etc - incidentally all of these well researched conclusions are things that Objectivists of all types including Linz will attack as "ant-Americanism" or "pacifism" or the usual).

Also if you were a true liberal you would understand that the old Right was very anti-imperialist and non-interventionist. Rand herself was highly influenced by the old right as that's the circles she kept when she was younger before she foolishly isolated herself with her sycophantic "collective". If you understood all this you would understand the significance of the Paleo-Conservative movement, its betrayal by William Buckley and NRO, Rothbard's expulsion from the Conservative movement and his subsequent creation of Paleo-libertarianism (via Lew Rockwell who is a heroic guy). IOW you would actually understand the history of America foreign policy and the history of the American Right (and Rand's relationship to it).

But of course you know none of these things. I know because I read your book. Its vapid. Just like the ARIans you claim to hate.

Doug -- With all due respect, you do recognize what a looney-tune you are, don't you? You live in a vast, messy, petty, odd, nasty universe of conspiracy theories and obscure, esoteric, bizarre sources. For you, the truth is somehow found in: the alt-right, mixed with the paleo-cons, flavored by the NeoCons, avoiding the OrgOists, complimented by the traditional Randians, minus the Obleftivists, bearing in mind the Old Right, considering the 1960s conservatives, plus the European nationalists, and on and on. And all this applies not just to philosophy and politics, but also to biology, psychology, evolution, neurology, cybernetics, and genito-ethniclastic-cyto-plasmorgraphical-keltoniocanroidialcentricalities. It's a fantasmagorical witch's brew of convoluted, contradictory, strange, unlikely, absurd claims which you change from week to week, and which never achieves more than semi-coherence at any given time, but which does manage to favor a great deal of personal bigotry and political tyranny.

Iran is no direct military threat to America, which is why I said unchecked. Yes, there is the Sunni/Shia divide, but Sunni and Shia do work together against America when it suits them. The Islamic regime of Iran and its supporters want to see Khomeini's prophecy of Islam spread from mountaintop to mountaintop come to pass no less than Sunni faithful do, so it's hard to imagine why you paint Iran as the adult in the Middle East. Egypt is closer to being an adult than Iran is. The bottom line is, the global jihadists are just as much your enemy as they are Israels enemy and Iran is part of that global jihad movement. Isolating America will not make that go away, and nor will throwing Israel to the wolves.

"Inversely, an unchecked Iran will inevitably cost more than a 100,000 American lives."

Why? Iran represents no military threat to the US. The "briefcase nuke" stuff is NeoCon nonsense. If you actually look into the ME situation you realize that Iran is the adult in the ME. Iran is sane compared to Saudi Arabia not to mention it is the enemy of the Saudis. Israel itself has aligned itself with the Saudis and Al-Qaeda. In fact, Israel has become Al-Qaeda's air force.

This Randian demonization of Iran represents total ignorance. You get this shit from the NeoCon sources you read. Which is why its correct when the paleo-libertarians or the alt-right look at Objectivists and call you NeoCons. And Zionists. Eric Margolis, an excellent paleo-libertarian columnist, has repeatedly pointed out that what Iran represents is a threat to American and Israeli oil interests. The US has imposed sanctions against Iran because a huge increase in Iranian oil exports would almost certainly cause world oil prices to drop to $20 per barrel – something that would make the Saudis, the UAE, and all other oil producing nations – including the US – very nervous. Its cronyism that is behind the US elite's anti-Iranian stance. Cronyism. The very thing Ayn Rand challenged in 'Atlas Shrugged', her Bible.

America is a far greater enabler of Islamic violence than Iran. We arm everyone because of the insane imperial ideology that dominates BOTH the Left and the Right. Objectivists too are imperialists. You really shouldn't even be included in the liberty movement. You're all NeoCons on steroids. Even the better amongst you. I see no hope for this movement.

The West shouldn't be overthrowing any dictatorship unless it has semi-decent plans to replace it with a somewhat libertarian state. Think Germany and Japan in 1945. The best outcome in Syria would be for America to conquer and colonize it along radical pro-freedom lines.

I still think it was right to go into Iraq (Iran would have been better); what was the wrong was Bush's lack of follow-through

This is NeoCon insanity. We know with absolute certainty that Saddam's Iraq was not involved with anti-American terrorism (there was just a book released by a former CIA officer who was Saddam's official liaison). Iraq was a threat to Israel not to America and Israel is not an American ally no matter what pro-Zionists say. Obama no matter what his faults was not a total puppet of Israel. In retrospect, that was one of the few good things about him.

Plus a war with Iran would cost a hundred thousand American lives (you can't win a war with Iran with just air power). Linz, I know you don't have children but if have nephews maybe you want to sacrifice them for the sake of destroying Iran. And then what would that accomplish?

Trump is losing a ton of support from his supporters over this crap. He's in danger of losing his internet army. If he persists with this foreign policy and he refuses to stop the refugee program (which he has not done) he is going to lose his support and we will have President Sanders in 2020. But Objectivists can be proud that "we're finally standing up to Islamo-filth." (This is the problem with being anti-Islam without understanding the destructiveness of the American empire - a problem I made for decades.)

If even you say this crap Linz, the Objectivist movement is irredeemable.

Assad is part of The Filth. I am delighted that The Filth has been confronted. This is not gratuitous bellicosity; it is the retrieving of the moral compass Obamuslim deliberately jettisoned in his treasonous quest to promote Islamofilth ("red line in the sand" turned out to be a yellow one). I still think it was right to go into Iraq (Iran would have been better); what was the wrong was Bush's lack of follow-through and Obamuslim's premature withdrawal leaving a vacuum for ISIS and Iran.

I don't think ARISIS will be happy with the strike in Syria at all. First, Trump did it, and Trump is "the villain of our time"; second, it's not the nuke-flattening of the entire region that Bwook apparently favours, even as he says "Let 'em in, let 'em in let 'em in" re Muslims generally. Bwook will be conflicted though: apparently Hillary, whose election he most fervently hoped for, has supported Trump in this.

I would say that Israeli interests and the American imperialism of the NeoCon influenced right and the one world globalism of the Left all intersect. Exactly how is a fascinating subject I have not seen anyone fully address. But there must be a convergence of interests because political events are so damn predictable. You just know what is going to happen.

"It seems that none of our foreign policy experts can think more than one or two moves ahead in this game."

I agree. It seems that there is a set of political, moral and ideological tenets that are accepted uncritically and can not be challenged. The media shows images of dead children (yet again) and that is enough to trigger the emotionalist sentiments held by largely everyone on the left and mainstream right. In back of those emotionalist sentiments is the view of America as the world's 9-1-1 service and then all the sophistic economic and political arguments for the ME being "of strategic interest".

Trump for all his bluster is just as susceptible to altruism as anyone else. Although, I also wonder if he is doing this because he is trying to prove that he is not the "stooge of Putin". If that is the case, then his psychological frame is even worse than I would have believed. A genuinely confident man would not concern himself with being morally appealing to Leftists or NeoCons. But apparently Trump is not on that level. This is depressing on many levels not the least of which is that Trump seems to be flirting with a war with Russia.

Assad in power is the best solution for the entire world, except for one country, and that country is not the United States.

Israel's immediate strategic goal is to decouple the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis, by removing the Shiite Assad from power, and replacing him with some Sunni, who would (they assume) stop arming and funding the Shiite Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a serious threat to Israel. I think this idea that replacing Assad will be better for Israel (not to mention Europe or the US) is farfetched. Iran funds and arms the Sunni Hamas terrorists in Gaza. I see no reason that the Islamic State, or more likely, the US government's allies in Syria, the Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), would not continue to fund Hezbollah, given that they all hate Israel more than they hate each other.

This whole operation is very short-sighted. It seems that none of our foreign policy experts can think more than one or two moves ahead in this game. There is no outcome in Syria other than Assad regaining power that does not come with a colossal internal bloodbath, endless refugees, and a hostile, failed state, like Libya, as an open wound there for generations. The US should leave the Syrians to settle the matter themselves. When intervening is guaranteed to lead to disaster and not intervening is guaranteed to lead to disaster, the presumption should be to not intervene. Civil wars are messy, brutal things. There is nothing the US can do to make it less brutal. Iraq proved that in spades. I was one of the people duped in 2003 and thought removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea. However, I learn from mistakes. No one in the neo-con foreign policy establishment (or ARI) seems to learn from mistakes.

Yaron Brook should be happy with this. I wouldn't be surprised the more bellicose Trump gets the less "fascist" he becomes in Brook's eyes. As long as he continues America's efforts to fight Israel's wars...

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.